New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Special conditions

Legal area

Court

8 Aug 2023

RYLAND v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2100

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2100
Court

High Court

The District Court failed to demonstrate it had applied the statutory thresholds for imposing a supervision sentence under s46 and for imposing the special rehabilitative condition under ss50 and 52 (significant risk of further offending and inadequacy of standard conditions); the supervision sentence was not shown to be the least restrictive appropriate outcome and therefore must be quashed and substituted with an order to come up for sentence if called upon within six months.
24 Feb 2023

FOLSTER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 292

Citation

[2023] NZHC 292
Court

High Court

There was insufficient evidence that alcohol was connected to the offending or to the appellant's prior convictions; therefore the s 54I threshold was not met for a no-alcohol special condition because no specific significant risk linked to alcohol was shown and no evidence that that condition would reduce the likelihood of reoffending through rehabilitation; the no-alcohol condition was set aside.
14 Feb 2022

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, v PALMER [2022] NZHC 174

Citation

[2022] NZHC 174
Court

High Court

The Court declined to impose interim special conditions under s 107IA(1) because s 107L(2A) already preserves existing Parole Board special conditions for at least three months after the ESO came into force and the Parole Board is the appropriate forum to determine continuation or variation of those conditions with current information.
13 Oct 2021

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v KEPU [2021] NZHC 2745

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2745
Court

High Court

On the provisional and untested evidence available the Court was satisfied that the respondent demonstrated a pervasive pattern of serious violent offending and posed a very high risk of committing a relevant violent offence; accordingly an interim supervision order was granted pending the ESO determination and the Court imposed standard conditions (excluding the standard condition prohibiting association with persons under 16) and specified special conditions including approved residence, geographic restriction north of Warkworth, electronic monitoring, psychological assessment and treatment…
30 Aug 2019

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v O’REILLY [2019] NZHC 2160

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2160
Court

High Court

The Court has jurisdiction under s 107IA(5) to vary interim special conditions before the Parole Board can act; it declined to impose a blanket Wairarapa exclusion because that would impair reintegration and ongoing constructive discussions about suitable accommodation, but granted a targeted interim exclusion of the Carterton district due to the presence of victims' family and legitimate community protection concerns, with the expectation the Parole Board will review all special conditions.
27 Jun 2019

SMITH v NZ POLICE [2019] NZHC 1486

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1486
Court

High Court

Intensive supervision was justified given the appellant's history and need for judicial monitoring to incentivise compliance, but the two year maximum was not shown to be required so the term was reduced to 18 months; the special residence condition was unlawful because it inappropriately reversed the standard balance and lacked justification, while the condition permitting probation to control the circumstances of contact with the victim was lawful and necessary to reduce reoffending risk and protect the victim despite the existence of a protection order.
24 Aug 2018

WOODS v NZ POLICE [2018] NZHC 2189

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2189
Court

High Court

The challenged conditions were lawful: the curfew and electronic monitoring did not amount to a s 33 residential restriction because the appellant was not subject to all s 33(2) requirements; all challenged conditions exhibited a rational nexus to the purposes in s 93(3), and were necessary and proportional given the appellant's high risk and rehabilitative needs; the programme condition fell within s 15(3)(b)/s16 as a permissible placement and aimed to facilitate rehabilitation and reintegration.
13 Jun 2017

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v PAUL [2017] NZHC 1294

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1294
Court

High Court

The health assessor's report and supporting material established that the respondent has a pervasive pattern of serious violent offending and meets the statutory s107IAA(2) 'very high risk' criteria, justifying the imposition of a 10 year extended supervision order and 12 months intensive monitoring to protect the community.
19 May 2016

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v BROWN [2016] NZHC 1038

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1038
Court

High Court

The Court concluded the statutory criteria for an Extended Supervision Order were satisfied and therefore imposed a new ESO for 10 years, ordered interim special conditions and directed that Intensive Monitoring be imposed for the statutory maximum of 12 months.
27 Mar 2012

PAWEL MARIAN MISIUK V NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD COA CA164/2012

Citation

COA CA164/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that s 28(5) does not require a pre-variation hearing; it requires the Board to hold another parole hearing as soon as practicable after amending a release direction. The Board validly exercised or purported to exercise its power to impose special conditions for release under s 29(1)(b) read with s 15(2). Even if the s 55 process applied and rendered the Board's decision invalid, that would mean no valid parole direction existed and the appellant would remain lawfully detained under the warrants of commitment; accordingly there was no basis for habeas corpus and the appeal was…